While I think Wilder has some great films, I think too many of his films are flawed. His cynicism is rarely consistent within a film, and too many characters are simple stereotype/caricatures.
Welles certainly has a few magnificent films, but not enough consistently top-notch output.
David Lean? I guess it’s a personal opinion, but I find most of his films muddled and not worth watching a second time.
So I stick with Hitchcock as best overall, but with Ford as the best storyteller and Griffith as the most innovative. I can watch almost any of their films over and over again, and still come away with some insight.
One also has to note that Victor Fleming managed both GONE WITH THE WIND and WIZARD OF OZ in the same year.
It’s not like those are the only movies he’s made. He didn’t make my list, but he has certainly made some great movies- from Dead Alive to Heavenly Creatures.
Ok… Either I’ve forgoten to take my eye pills this morning, or you actually haven’t nominated Baz Luhrman… So he hasn’t made that many movies, but Moulin Rouge and especially Romeo & Juliet’s directorial tchniques make these films what hey are. The best ever, definately
You’re right. He hasn’t made that many movies. He’s made three. I’m sure that he’s talented, but to suggest that he is greater at his craft than any one of the aforementioned is ludicrous. This is not to say that he won’t continue to make terrific films, but how about a little perspective? I would suggest that a stronger case could be made for Woody Allen, or Preston Sturges, or Milos Forman, or Roman Polanski, etc.
It’s hard to pick a “best,” but I’ll agree with those who named Hitchcock, Kubrick, Scorcese and Spielberg–and because no one has named him yet, let me throw in Ingmar Bergman.
Touch of Evil is as well directed as any film ever made. So was Citizen Kane, or The Stranger. That Welles was not given more studio pictures to direct was criminal. The Magnificant Ambersons was a masterpiece even after it was chopped to hell. See Othello. The Trial. When Welles had a adequate budget, he did consistently excellent work. That his first Hollywood effort was to screw WR Hearst was a foolish thing to do with his career, but unavoidable considering who he was.
FWIW, Welles would have probably picked John Ford, one of his favorites.
And whatever happened to Kenneth Branagh? After Henry V, Dead Again, Much Ado about Nothing, and Hamlet, all made before he turned forty, I would have guessed that he would be a great director. But since then, he’s been pretty quiet.
Another one that I would have suspected would be on the list of all-time greats by now was Quentin Tarantino. Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction were an amazing debut, followed up by Four Rooms and Jackie Brown. All good movies, and two great ones. But since then, nothing. Now he’s coming out with a martial arts flick. Hopefully, it’ll be good enough to stand the genre on its head and he’ll re-establish himself as a great director, but I have my doubts.
You forgot Meet the Feebles, an R-Rated version of The Muppet Show.
For my mind, it’s got to be Orson Welles. The man was a genius, surrounded by morons. Yeah, some of his films have problems, but remember Welles either made them under protest, or was shafted with a budget of less than what he needed to complete the film. (There’s one of his films from the 1970’s or 1960’s that he finished all the photography on, but ran out of money to do the editing. Peter Bogdonovich was supposed to finish it after Welles’s death, but I don’t know if he did or not. And no, I am not talking about It’s All True.)
“Spielberg has another 20-30 years worth of films left”
Not at his peak if history is any guide. I don’t know of too many directors who continued making great films in their 70’s (Kurusawa being perhaps the main exception). Wilder and Hitchcock were probably past their best by 65 though they continued to make films. So Spielberg probably has about 10 good years left. And don’t forget that Scorcese is still making films. While I think Spielberg is a great director, IMO too many of his recent films (eg Schindler’s List, Saving Private Ryan, Minority Report ) have the same problem of sappy, artificial endings spoiling otherwise good films. Plus he has made at least one truly awful film : The Temple of Doom. When you are talking about the all-time no.1 ,with so many good choices, that puts Spielberg out of contention IMO unless he produces several more masterpieces.
Wumpus,
I would question some of the Hitch movies you list as “great” especially Rope and Man who know too Much(either version). Anyway you are probably right that Hitch made more good films than Lean. Like I said IMO Lean has a big edge in the range of his talents. Think of Lawrence of Arabia, Great Expectations, Blithe Spirit, Brief Encounter and In Which We Serve. Each of them is completely different from the other. I don’t see the same range of films from Hitchcock. Many of his great films repeat the same themes (eg. innocent man on the run, trains etc.)
I know less about Ford but my impression is of another great director who worked in a relatively narrow range of films.
Wilder and Spielberg have been more versatile but not quite as much as Lean IMO and each of them has made at least one film I really didn’t like (Irma La Douce from Wilder).
Ultimately of course it’s a matter of opinion what you value for your no.1 choice. In reality there are too many great directors to narrow it down to just one choice. But it does make you really think about your preferences so it is a useful and interesting exercise.
No one has mentioned Ozu Yasujiro? Or Satyajit Ray?
But of course, the true winner has to be Michael Bay. Bad Boys.The Rock.Armageddon.Pearl Harbor. None can match such grandeur, such humanity, such delicate grace.
In a recent thread about the Coen brothers’ The Hudsucker Proxy I noted that on IMDB it rates as their worst film with a rating of 7.4 (7.6 being required to crack their top 250 of all time). So the Coens are batting 1.000 at scoring 7.4 I thought I would check some other career averages
Well, consistency isn’t necessarily all that important in an artist, given that what he creates lives on. It’s the number of good movies they made that’s important. The fact that Hitchcock (or Ford, or Welles, or even Lean–heretic that I am, I can’t stand Dr. Zhivago) made some stinkers is irrelevant. Just don’t watch 'em.
To put it another way: there are people who feel that all three of Terrance Malick’s films–Badlands, Days of Heaven, The Thin Red Line–are masterpieces. I’m not one of them, but that’s neither here nor there for the purposes of this discussion. If you think all three are great, that gives him a perfect record. But still … he’s only directed three films in thirty years.
During that same time, Scorcese has made over a dozen movies. Some of those were stinkers; some of them were Mean Streets, Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, After Hours, Goodfellas, etc. When you add up the good Scorcese films, there are more on the plate than there are Malick films, period. That’s pretty decisive in my book. (That and the fact I’m not actually a Malick fan!)
I’ll 2nd all the votes for Lean, Ford, Kurosawa, Spielberg and Welles and the Coens. But the winner would have to be Kubrick. He directed virtually every genre possible (sc-fi, drama, horror etc.) and his films were intelligent, provocotive and always very watchable.
Since so many of my other choices have already been taken, I shall nominate Jean Renoir, the most humane of directors. Check out La Grande Illusion and La Règle du Jeu.